Conklin presents a detailed and systematic analysis of a
variety of oath formulas in Biblical Hebrew (BH). The crux of the problem for
Conklin began with an observation of contradictory translations of Ruth 1:17b. The
NRSV translates the phrase as May the LORD
do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you. In
stark contradiction to the NRSV, the NJPSV translates the phrase as Thus and
more may the LORD do to me if anything
but death parts me from you. Conklin believed the problem to be of a
linguistic nature, so that one should expect a linguistic solution. To discover such a
solution, Conklin gathered the oath formulas found in the Hebrew Bible so that the
patterns, tendencies, and divergences may be seen within a larger matrix (p. 2).

In the opening chapter, Conklin
offers a brief survey of speech act theory, the general structures of oath
formulas, and an overview of previous scholarship. He perceives a lack of
studies focused on the morphosyntax of BH oaths, especially oath formulas with
the particle כי as the lead constituent. Conklin desires
to offer a systematic analysis of the morphosyntax of the particles in oaths
with regard to the larger morphosyntactic context of these particles in the
language (p. 12). In chapters two to five he examines four elements that constitute
oath formulas in BH.

Chapter 2 is devoted to an
analysis of the various authenticating formulas found in BH. Conklin identifies
five formulas that authenticate the truthfulness of an oath. The five elements
are found in about 135 texts. These elements include the raising of a hand, an
invocation of one or more witnesses, the explicit use of the verb for swearing,
the phrase thus will X do to Y, and the phrase (by) the life of X (p. 13).
Each of the authenticating elements is discussed in turn with multiple examples
given across the HB. A few of the elements are divided into subcategories. The
raising of a hand is divided into those containing a mention of hand-raising as
a reference to oath-taking and those containing the use of hand-raising within
the oath itself. The use of the verb שׁבע is divided into
three categories: use of the verb in a narrative context, usage within an oath,
and use of the verb within an adjuration. The formulaic use of the phrase life
of X is divided into places in which it occurs outside and within an oath. I
am curious as to why Conklin decided to leave out the placing of the hand under
another's thigh as an authenticating element (cf. Gen 24:2; 47:29). He also
appears to dismiss passages such as Josh 2:821 which includes the use of the
verb שׁבע, an invocation of a witness, and a possible
category of by the life of X.

Chapter 3 evaluates conditionally
formulated oaths. Conklin begins with a brief survey of scholarship concerning
conditional-clauses using the particle אם.
He uses data gathered from 34 conditional אם clauses in 1 Samuel
as a baseline for his examination of conditional oaths with אם and אם־לא in the Hebrew Bible. He bases his working assumptions on an aspectual
view of the Hebrew prose verbal system in which certain forms entail either
foregrounding or backgrounding and all the forms can be used for multiple
temporal situations (p. 33). I am of the opinion that these assumptions limit
the possible explanations of the different oath related phenomenon found in his
study. For example, in his discussion of nominal clauses and perfective verbs
in the protasis, the observation that a volitive normally appears in the
apodosis could explain why a negative apodosis was often elided in oath
contexts. In these cases the irreal nature of the apodosis would be
understood or at least familiar. After a detailed comparison between conditional
clauses and conditional oaths, Conklin concludes that both types of conditional
oaths fit the description of regular conditional clause protases (p. 44).

Conklin devotes chapter 4 to oaths
marked with כי. He follows the pattern of comparison
established in chapter 3. Conklin challenges the consensus view that the
particle in oath formulas is emphatic or asseverative. He concludes that the
particle functions as a complementizer in oaths and stands in for the verb to
swear (p. 59). His analysis of twelve syntactically maddening texts is one
of the more insightful sections of the chapter. His conclusions provide a helpful
starting point for future research, not only for the usage of the particle in
oath formulas, but also for a re-evaluation of the use of the particle in the
Hebrew Bible.

In chapter 5 Conklin examines fourteen
oaths that do not use a conditional protasis or כי as an introduction to an oath. Ten of the fourteen oaths contain no
formal marker. He briefly returns to where he started and asks if the type of
authenticating elements (ch. 2) determined the way in which an oath formula was
marked. He concludes a lack of meaningful correlation between the authenticating
elements and the marking of an oath formula (p. 65). The bulk of the chapter
contains his discussion of the alleged function of כי־אם as an oath marker. He surveys the modern origins of the assumed
function of compound particle before discussing the twelve texts that are usually thought to attest
an asseverative function. He concludes that these texts demand an
analysis of the two particles as distinct particles and that they fall into
the category of oaths marked by כי (p. 75). In an appendix, Conklin
surveys oath formulas in three groups of Semitic languages.

Conklin's work whets the appetite
for more analysis of the different phenomenon related to both oath formulas as
well as conditional clauses. His labor is a valuable aid for a better
understanding of the syntax of various oath formulas, from the common to the
unusual. I see this work as a starting point for those wishing to evaluate
oaths in their discourse setting. One of the difficulties in works such as this
is ensuring that it flows in a readable manner. At times Conklin overwhelms the
reader with great amounts of data and information. He provides tables and overviews at
valuable intersections. However, more tables would be beneficial in drawing the
data together. The flow of the study would have benefited by incorporating
concluding remarks after each category. Also, I anticipated Conklin to return to Ruth
1:17b and offer a final assessment after his detailed study of BH oath
formulas.

Despite these remarks, the new understandings presented
in this study represent a much needed linguistic foray into the study of oaths
and their morphosyntatical setting. This work is well placed in Eisenbrauns'
Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic series. This series continues to
offer groundbreaking works in the area of West Semitic studies.